Saturday, December 21, 2013

Mark
L. Berlin, Professor of Practice, Institute for the Study of International
Development,

McGill
University

Amy
Sakalauskas, Practicing Member, Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society

Robert
Peterson, Counsel at Dominion GovLaw.ca

Mathieu
Bouchard, Partner, Irving Mitchell Kalichman LLP

In
an editorial published on December 20, 2013 on the heel of the approval of
Trinity Western University’s proposed law school by the Federation of Law
Societies of Canada and the B.C. Government, the National Post editorial board
argues that “Canada can handle a Christian law school” (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/12/20/national-post-editorial-board-canada-can-handle-a-christian-law-school/). The National
Post invokes two arguments: 1) because all other law schools across Canada are
open to LGBTTQ individuals, allowing one school that effectively excludes them doesn’t
lead to exclusion since other options exist; 2) whereas “mere racist bigotry”
can never be tolerated, “the proscription of gay sex contained in the Bible and
the traditional Christian teachings that derive therefrom” is guaranteed by the
Charter protection of freedom of religion and conscience.

Both
arguments, besides being deeply offensive to LGBTTQ individuals and their
friends and allies, are fundamentally flawed.

Looking
at the first argument, one instance of discrimination is one too many. Indeed,
our courts have never accepted that an individual, organization or corporation
be allowed to discriminate against a specific group on the basis that they were
the only one doing so. The National Post’s approach would lead to a race to the
bottom, protecting the last bigot standing in every field of human activity!
This is clearly not what the Charter stands for. Most importantly, arguments
that are reminiscent of those invoked to justify minority quotas in certain
Canadian and U.S. universities until the 1960s, not to say the “separate but
equal” mantra of the segregation era, have no place in today’s Canada.

On
the second argument, the National Post appears to forget that until very
recently, in addition to the prohibition of gay sex, the Bible was used to
justify “mere racist bigotry”. South Africa’s Apartheid, U.S. southern states’
prohibition of interracial marriages, discriminatory laws and policies against
Jews in Christian-dominated countries, to name a few, all supposedly found
their source in the Bible. Did it make them any more acceptable? Of course not!
Bigotry in the delivery of public services, whatever its origins, is a scourge
that cannot be “excused” by religion, whoever the targets of the bigotry are.

The
Canadian Charter and provincial human rights codes protect all minorities from
discrimination, without distinction. The same way we wouldn’t accept a law
school that excludes women, Asians or people with a disability, the same way we
shouldn’t accept one that excludes individuals on the basis of their sexual
orientation. Period.

Friday, December 20, 2013

Global mapping covers 195
constitutions across five regions, in English and original languages

For immediate release

Date: 13 December 2013

New York —

UN Women today launched a
Constitutional Database (http://constitutions.unwomen.org)
which for the first time examines constitutions through a gender lens, mapping
the principles and rules which guarantee, deny, or protect the rights of women
and girls around the world.

Constitutions have a tremendous impact
on women. They are well-recognized markers for countries and their citizens,
serving as the bill of rights and providing a framework for the rights and
responsibilities of people and a mirror to the way people are governed. The
United Nation’s CEDAW
Committee has often commented on the contents of national constitutions, as
has UN Women’s flagship report Progress
of the World’s Women.

Expected to be of great use to gender
equality and human rights activists and experts, the innovative searchable
database, to be updated annually, provides a comprehensive overview of the
current status of provisions relevant to women’s rights and gender equality
across the world, including comparison of the data across various countries.
The resource covers 195 countries, including all UN Member States and
Observers, and is organized regionally into Africa, Americas, Asia, Europe and
Oceania.

The database makes the constitutions
available in officially approved English translations as well as in their
original language, with a total of 62 languages.

Allowing users to search by keyword,
legal provisions are grouped into 16 categories which were carefully defined by
reviewing the constitutions from a human rights perspective. Among others, the
categories include: rights of women; public authorities, institutions and
services; political participation and freedom of association; citizenship and
nationality; education; employment; marriage and family life; status of
religious/customary law; status of international law (including human rights
law); right to property/inheritance; and reproductive rights.

The Constitutional Database was
conceived by UN Women, as part of the entity’s work supporting Member States to
adopt sound governance strategies that strengthen women’s rights and gender
equality, and supported by the Swedish
International Development Agency (SIDA).

Media Contacts:

Oisika Chakrabarti, +1 646.781-4522; oisika.chakrabarti@unwomen.org

Sharon Grobeisen, +1 646.781-4753; sharon.grobeisen@unwomen.org

See more at:
http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2013/12/un-women-launches-firstever-database-mapping-gender-provisions-in-constitutions-worldwide#sthash.nfPq2OO0.dpuf

The National Post has published this op-ed, jointly written by Angela Cameron, Clayton Ruby, Angela Chaisson, Mark L.
Berlin, Amy Sakalauskas, Jena McGill, Robert Peterson and Mathieu
Bouchard, decrying TWU's discriminatory "community covenant" and the decision to grant preliminary accreditation to TWU to operate a law school despite it.

On Monday, Dec. 16th, 2013 the Federation of Law Societies of Canada released a decision recommending approval of Trinity Western University’s
proposed law school, which requires students, staff and faculty to sign a covenant agreeing to abstain from intimacy the violates marriage between a man and a woman. Here you can find the Special Advisory Group's report, and the Federation's final decision.Professor Elaine Craig of Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie yesterday penned this op-ed, decrying the inequality of a law school that excludes gays and lesbians and calling on provincial law societies (which retain the ultimate power to decide whether or not to admit graduates of TWU to the bar) to answer the question: "Is it in the public interest for the profession of law to approve an
educational institution with policies that discriminate against gays and
lesbians?"
An amazing group of law students released this insightful and pithy commentary on the Federation decision.On Wednesday Dec. 18th the news got worse. The next step in the accreditation process required approval by the Minister of Education in British Columbia, where Trinity Western is located. Minister Virk approved the TWU proposal.
Again, law students rallied to release another compelling commentary.

Here is where you can donate to support the legal action against the decision of the BC Government to approve TWU's law school proposal.

Monday, December 16, 2013

It's a sad day for equality in Canada, with the Federation of Law Societies issuing its formal approval of the proposed Christian law school at Trinity Western University, where students must sign a 'community covenant' that includes a provision against engaging in same-sex sexual intimacy.So many members of the Canadian legal community have spoken out against the creation of a law school that formally discriminates against GLBTTQ and two-spirited law students: Canadian Law Deans, academics, law students and prominent members of the profession all publicly voiced significant concerns about the discriminatory impact of approving the TWU proposal on would-be law students who are GLBTTQ and two-spirited.

Some of us from B4E contributed to this op-ed opposing the accreditation of TWU, published in the National Post last January.

Here's the final report of the Special Advisory Committee established by the Federation with a mandate to address "additional considerations" that the Federation should take into account in determining whether graduates of TWU should be eligible for membership in provincial law societies in light of the 'community covenant'. The Federation sought an opinion from Torys
lawyer John B. Laskin, who concluded that the Supreme Court of Canada's
2001 decision in BC Colleges of Teachers v TWU, 2001 SCC 31
is dispositive of any constitutional challenge to the creation of the
law school, and in doing so takes up Professor Elaine Craig's compelling arguments to the contrary, here.The lengthy final report of the Federation is here.Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby has pledged to oppose the accreditation of TWU , and fundraising efforts are already underway to support the legal challenge: http://www.gofundme.com/TWULegalChallenge.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

The Ottawa Citizen has published a profile of Professor Elizabeth Sheehy's new book, Defending Battered Women on Trial. The book, which is being published by UBC Press, is available for purchase here. The Citizen article is available here. Watch this space for more information about the book!

Sunday, December 8, 2013

My heart is heavy. The braided life of pain, joy,
courage, strength and love – indeed, all that was the brilliant complex persona
of Nelson Mandela is no more. Mandela is the most significant public intellectual
of my lifetime. He spoke to the many threads of my identity – my
Caribbean/African intellectual roots, the historical realities of all Africa’s
children labouring to make visible the continuing realities of a formal
colonialism largely seen as past, my aspirations for a deeply meaningful life
in the law and all my hope for the full realization of Black/African
empowerment in my lifetime.

Mandela demonstrated that spiritual politics is not mere
rhetoric. It can transform the world. He demonstrated without equivocation that
civility, dignity and leadership were indigenous to Africa. He ushered in a
model for transitional governance rooted in the South African philosophical
ethic of Ubuntu of his
forefathers/mothers. In this effort, he joined in solidarity with fellow
activists including Archbishop Desmond Tutu. The South African Truth and
Reconciliation (TRC) is the aspirational model for non-violent change echoed
and desired by many around the world.

One need only read Antjie Krog’s Country of My Skull: Guilt, Sorrow and the Limits of Forgiveness in
the New South Africa, to realize the complexity of the model. Most importantly,
the TRC made the history of South African Black peoples one that could be
internalized and claimed by White South Africans estranged, deformed and
sometimes yearning through the corruption that was apartheid. As she said in
her closing poem, speaking to and about the TRC participants:

Because
of you

This
country no longer lies

Between
us but within

The TRC was a public act of acknowledgement and
contrition divorced from any South African state desire to be absolved of legal
liability. This came later under other leadership. It was a shining beacon of
governance by example. We were witness to forgiveness, as political method, raw
and true. South Africans from diverse communities, came together in the
fullness of their imperfect humanity.
This moment required trust. Trust in their hearts’ yearning for peace.
Trust in their spiritual imagination. Trust in their leader, Mandela. Mandela’s
generosity of spirit upon his release was rooted within Ubuntu. He had already shown them the path through his own grace
upon his release from captivity. Through their participation in the TRC, South
Africans embraced their leader and sought to succor him while seeking to
alleviate their own pain.

There is absolutely no doubt that Nelson Mandela was
extraordinary. In a world where the cult of personality often reduces the
actions of individuals to content-less fodder for the infotainment industry –
he stood alone. The joy and admiration in his presence and words transcended
race, class, age, gender and nation state boundaries. All the boundaries that
divide us became ephemera. He was not simply charismatic. He was loved. Loved
by his country(wo)men and embraced by the world. His words and actions transformed
international governance, as the leaders of the world saw a reflection of
themselves as whole souled. For those moments, they were willing to see
themselves through the eyes of this unique man, a Black man – a man they wished
to emulate.

Mandela’s entire public life was a political call for
action. As the elder statesman of the African continent, he sought to harness
the collaborative potential of its disparate nations. He sought to empower and
galvanize the African Union as a platform for Africa’s control of its
continental politics. Today, the same world leaders who rise to applaud
Mandela, the icon, remain reluctant to take political direction from Mandela,
the African statesman. There was no risk to Western nations in condemning
apartheid but there is risk and a conflict of interest in redressing the
economic power imbalance between the African continent and the West. There has
been an almost total failure by Western nations to critically evaluate and
account for the practices of their institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and
WTO that consciously maintain the economic subordination of Africa and other
nations from the South. There is continued resistance to acknowledge the
entitlement of Africa’s multiplicity of nations to equality in the community of
nations. The missionary ethic of “rescue” remains, albeit with a shrinking of
the alms provided. Mandela’s continental and international leadership in this area
is far less comfortable a topic at this moment of mourning.

There is a dangerous seduction in the emphasis of Western
leaders on the legacy of Mandela post-release. The man of ideas formed through
a crucible of pain is seen in an almost ahistorical manner. His admirable
endpoint can easily become a blunt instrument to disempower Black struggle just
as easily as he can be a marker of Black contribution to global public life.
For how would a young Mandela fare if born today? Would the purpose underlying
his militancy have been sufficient to transcend the label of terrorist? Would
he still serve a lengthy incarceration on Robben Island now comforted by the companionship
of Guantanamo? Would neoliberal trade interests in economic relations with the South
African state have cloaked apartheid in the name of amoral capitalism? What of the funding of anti-apartheid
activities by those of us abroad – terrorist financing or solidarity? Perhaps
in grief, I become fanciful. Yet, I fear that we are best at recognizing the
fully formed and verified activist and have very little capacity to recognize
them in political utero.

Similarly, we crave peace and appropriately celebrate our
unique warrior peacemakers. Mandela was such a man. There is a caution. There
is a state interest in raising on high our peacemakers while incarcerating or
stigmatizing those who engage in direct struggle. We have seen how functional
amnesia about the political history of Black liberation has resulted in the blunting
of Martin Luther King Jr.’s politics, Frantz Fanon reduced to a few aphorisms
and no recollection of the contribution of giants such as CLR James to the
liberation struggles in Africa, America and the Caribbean. The personal history
of Mandela, the warrior, that inspires many, can become a toothless Hallmark
card sentiment, in the hands of states driven to contain and derail the
equality struggles of those they oppress. Mandela’s extraordinary transcendence
as a man of peace must not be manipulated to become a weapon of judgement used
against Black/African peoples, particularly our youth, who today continue to
labour after him. “Lest we forget” is a sentiment that applies to many
communities. It should be a call to arms for those of us mourning Mandela’s
passing today.

Mandela embodied our dignity as Black peoples. Through
every action, he made our history of racism present and our possibility to
transcend the stigmata of race/racism, real.
It is so very true that Mandela is responsible for catalyzing tremendous
change within and outside South Africa. Yet in 2013, Black peoples are
vulnerable in every part of the world in which they live. From a Pan-Africanist
perspective we are Black/African peoples in grave danger. My pain has been
compounded as I watch world leaders genuinely mourning him while failing to see
the Black/African peoples within their own body politic. They speak of his
legacy of change while failing to account for the destruction of the mechanisms
such as untied aid and robust human rights instruments that would ensure the
dignity and equality of the Black and other racialized peoples in their
midst. Borders become more impenetrable.
Black flesh consumed during slavery is no longer as appealing as Africa’s rich resources.
The rapacious hunger of over-development fueling Europe and America continues
unabated. Wilfully blind they speak. I wait for them to act.

Hearts don’t break but they can be bruised and battered.
Mandela wove us together as a global community. A unique and powerful thread
has snapped. Our intimacy transmuted into a collective wail … who, how, when?
Who will replace the irreplaceable and lead us to a place where we transcend
our differences? How will we sustain and advance his legacy of spiritual
politics? When will we truly be free? In
this place of pain and unknowing, we risk the narrowing of Mandela’s vision.
Ultimately, we can all choose to be a living legacy – to break cycles, to
sacrifice individual retribution for the greater community and to always live
in hope.

Niigaan: In Conversation is honoured and excited to partner with Red Man Laughing
for its upcoming Winter Gala and Fundraiser at the National Arts
Centre on December 10, 2013 in Ottawa, Ontario. The theme is Biiskaabiiyang
(returning to ourselves) particularly regarding how to move forward
in the collective work across the land. Please join us for music,
laughter, discussion, dancing and delicious food.

Our host for the evening is Ryan McMahon,
comedian, actor, thinker and Anishinaabe living in Winnipeg. He will
be joined by:

Thursday, December 5, 2013

Professors Angela Cameron and Vanessa Gruben participated in a feminist round table earlier this year dealing with the governance gap in assisted human reproduction.This group of activists and scholars have recently released this report, outlining critical legal and social issues that require the immediate attention of provincial governments.

Monday, December 2, 2013

From the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law's communications team:

Announcing the Nicole LaViolette Friends of Lambda Prize

The Lambda Foundation is proud to announce that it has renamed its award at the University of Ottawa the Nicole LaViolette Friends of Lambda Prize. The Foundation has chosen to honour Professor LaViolette
in this way because she exemplifies leadership and achievement both in
terms of her scholarly work on LGBT legal issues and her personal
commitment to human rights.

The
new name for the award also acknowledges, with deep appreciation, the
generous Friends of Lambda who established this Lambda prize in 1995 and
have financially maintained it over the years.
Professor LaViolette was one of the earliest recipients of the Lambda
Prize at uOttawa (1999), one of ten of our awards across Canada. “Lambda
Awards are unique in their recognition of LGBT scholarship. The support
I received for my work on sexual minority refugees was tremendously
important,” she says. Professor LaViolette has since been recognized
nationally and internationally as a leading scholar and expert in
refugee and immigration issues relating to sexual orientation and gender
identity. She has also remained active in the community, spearheading
an Ottawa group committed to resettling in Canada LGBT refugees who are
in facing persecution because of their sexual orientation or gender
identity.
The Nicole LaViolette Friends of Lambda Prize awards excellence in
research on issues affecting gays, lesbians, bisexual, transgendered and
intersex (LGBTI) people, specifically laws, and public and private
policies affecting their human rights, as well as those matters
pertaining more generally to their communities, values, achievements,
arts and sports. All applicants, whether graduate students, postdoctoral
fellows or early career professors, must also demonstrate that they
have contributed to the LGBTI community.

Thursday, November 28, 2013

The federal government’s approach to “cyberbullying”
in Bill C-13, seems more likely to empower Big Brother than to meaningfully protect
or empower little sister, or any children, for that matter. At a press conference Justice Minister Peter
MacKay claimed that the government’s priority is to “keep Canadians safe”,
“particularly our children”. If so, this
government has a funny way of showing it.
Not only does the bill fall well short of meaningfully addressing
“cyberbullying”, it makes even this limited response conditional on accepting
increased state surveillance writ large.

“Cyberbullying” has become an umbrella term
for a range of behaviours – everything from repeated insults motivated by
personal disputes between individuals to invasive and hateful attacks motivated
by sexist, homophobic, racist and other prejudices against entire groups. It is clear that a unidimensional response
such as that found in the bill is highly unlikely to meaningfully resolve the
issues at stake. As a result, many have
called for a comprehensive national strategy that identifies what kinds of
behaviours, practices and forms of harm need to be addressed. Only then can we assess the potential of
current legal and policy mechanisms, the gaps that remain and the responses needed.

We know, for example, that those who are
seen as “different” are more likely to be targeted by “bullying”. The kinds of things that make someone
“different” include race, disability, sexual orientation and sexual
identity. Getting at the root of that
kind of “cyberbullying” will require strategies that address systemic racism,
sexism and homophobia, as well as educational initiatives that teach attackers
other ways of behaving. Long-term change
requires a strategy that includes policies aimed at inclusion and respect for
diversity, human rights education, behavioural approaches, restorative
practices and, in some cases, criminal law responses.

The “cyberbullying” bill addresses only
certain kinds of behaviour and offers only one kind of response. It targets non-consensual
distribution of intimate images, hate speech based on sex, age, national origin
and mental or physical ability, and false, indecent and harassing
communications using a telecommunications system. These provisions could be
very important for women and girls. Studies
suggest that they are more likely to be targeted by online threats of sexual
violence and attacks alleging sexual promiscuity than are heterosexual men and
boys.

Criminal sanctions for these behaviours
could make a meaningful statement not only about protecting youth, but also about
our commitment to gender equality and to minimizing barriers to girls’ and
young women’s full participation in our emerging digital society. But with no proactive initiatives to change
prejudices that leave women and girls open to these kinds of attacks, we are offered
only reactive criminal sanctions that in the past have done little on their own
to reduce women and children’s vulnerability to sexual violence.

We should not dismiss outright the
potential for criminal prohibitions on non-consensual distribution of intimate
images as a community condemnation of one egregious form of “cyberbullying”. But unless incorporated into a more
comprehensive strategy, its impact is likely to be more symbolic than
real. We must directly address why
displays of women’s sexuality or recordings of sexual violence against young women
are understood as a way of shaming them.
This is particularly perplexing given the media culture that tells girls
and women they should be “sexy” in a predefined way that is really just
designed to sell them everything from diet pills to cosmetics to plastic
surgery and more. Perhaps we need to
intervene here too, to target online business models that use our personal
information to profile us and then market to us according to that profile,
perpetuating harmful myths and stereotypes about women and girls, as well as
other social groups.

Finally, whatever one thinks of the
potential of the new criminal prohibition in terms of meaningfully addressing
“cyberbullying”, it is exceptionally objectionable to see the government
advancing once again the state surveillance agenda on the backs of our children. If the bill were seriously intended to
protect our children, then at a minimum the new surveillance powers would be tied
specifically and exclusively to the “cyberbullying” provisions. Can we expect that, as it did previously with
the lawful access bill, this government will again try to bully us by accusing those
who oppose expanding state surveillance of being unconcerned about the
vulnerable in our midst?

A government that aims to provide
meaningful long-term protection for those disproportionately targeted by
“cyberbullying” would bring us a stand-alone bill that addressed gendered hate
speech, non-consensual distribution of intimate images and criminal harassment
via telecommunications systems. That government would not have repealed a human
rights based remedy for hateful online attacks on vulnerable social groups and
their members, as this government did earlier this year. That government would commit to a broader
strategy for “cyberbullying” in all of its forms. That strategy would do more than just react
to certain instances of “cyberbullying” with punitive measures. It would also include proactive approaches
for addressing the social structures and behavioural factors that contribute to
the multitude of situations encompassed by the broad term “cyberbullying”. The victims of “cyberbullying” and Canadians
as a whole deserve no less.

In the Winter 2014 term, Professor Martha Jackman will be
introducing a new upper-year bilingual seminar course – Feminist Law Reform
CML4104/Réforme fémiste du droit CML4504. This innovative skills-focussed
3-credit course, offered on Wednesdays from 6 – 9 p.m., will enable
students to develop the necessary knowledge to pursue systemic law reform at
the federal level. Drawing on the expertise of feminist lawyers and
others actively engaged in the federal law reform process, areas of discussion
and training will include: access to information and research; submissions and
appearances before parliamentary committees; lobbying; media and public
relations campaigns; public legal education; grassroots outreach and other key
tools and avenues of feminist law reform advocacy. The course also offers
students an excellent opportunity to take advantage of the rich bilingual learning
environment at U of O : Professor Jackman will switch between languages each
week and presentations by guest speakers will be in English or in French.
Students may use the language of their choice in class, and English program
students may submit their written work in English. The course syllabus
can be found on Professor Jackman’s faculty website (http://www.commonlaw.uottawa.ca/en/martha-jackman.html)
or you can reach her at: mjackman@uottawa.ca.

Howard Sapers, Canada's Correctional Investigator, has released his Annual Report with a special focus on diversity in corrections. Sapers concludes that over the past decade, the number of Aboriginal inmates has increased by 46.4%, and the number of other visible minority inmates has grown by 75%, while the Caucasion inmate population has declined by 3%. The Report calls on Corrections Canada to increase diversity among prison staff, and develop a diversity training program for prison staff and officials. Sapers' full report is available here.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Dr. Sheila Dunn and Dr. Rebecca Cook have published an article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal arguing that Health Canada should approve mifepristone in Canada. See an article on the subject in the Ottawa Citizen. An extract of the paper is available here. A short excerpt:

An estimated 1 in 3 Canadian women will have an abortion during her lifetime, most commonly performed during the first trimester of pregnancy. However, Canadian women lack access to a safe, effective and often preferred method of early abortion that is available in many other countries. The internationally recognized "gold standard" for medical (i.e., nonsurgical) abortion, mifepristone (followed by misoprostol), is not available in Canada.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Today the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal in Kokopenace. This decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal held that an accused is constitutionally entitled to a representative jury pool. In Kokopenace, a First Nations accused argued successfully that First Nations people were inadequately represented in the jury pool. Kokopenace was among the cases that led to a review of jury selection processes in Ontario in 2011. In February 2013 retired Supreme Court of Canada Justice Iacobucci released a report entitled First Nations Representation on Ontario Juries, in which he raised serious concerns about the lack of First Nations representation of Ontario juries. He made several recommendations for reform.

This cases raises important issues for Indigenous accused. Stay tuned for further analysis!

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Via FemProf listserv:

PhD Fellowship in Gender Equality
Measurement

Carleton University – commencing 2014

Call for Applications

We
welcome applications from prospective PhD candidates interested in researching
gender equality, measurement, and feminist theory. The Fellowship is not tied
to a specific program at Carleton University, but interested applicants should
have a background and proven research interest in gender equality. The Fellow
will participate in, and act as a Research Assistant for, the Gender Equality Measurement (GEM)group, a multi-disciplinary cluster at
Carleton University, comprised of faculty members from Canadian Studies, Law
and Legal Studies, Political Science, and Public Policy and Administration, who
explore the epistemological, governance, and political effects of the
‘measurement turn’ in policy, activism, and feminist thought. This one-year,
funded fellowship may be renewed for a second year, financing permitting.

We
welcome applications from candidates from a variety of backgrounds and
perspectives. To apply for the fellowship, please send a copy of your c.v.,
transcripts, a one-page statement about your research background and interests
in gender equality, and indicating the PhD program at Carleton to which you are
applying, by January 15, 2014 to: